PDA

View Full Version : A realistic GOAT what if


timeyer
03-08-2009, 08:03 AM
What if Fed wins three more slams, two wimbledons and a farewell US open. That would put him at 16 without a French. Assuming he makes the French final again, he'd have over 20 finals.

Clearly that tops Sampras.

But what if Nadal wins 3-4 more slams, including a US open. He'd be at 8-9 total slams, but with a complete place setting.

I don't see Nadal lasting long enough to win many more than 10 slams. Not only is his game tough on his body, he seems to care for life outside of tennis.

I guess it comes down to quantity vs. versatility. I'm likely to lean towards Fed. Yes, I'm a fan of his smooth classical game, but he really isn't Clay deficient, just overmatched. It would be interesting to know how many titles he has on clay.

I think there's a real chance this could be a message board argument in 2014.

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 08:28 PM
On clay, Federer has won Hamburg master 4 times (in 2002,4, 5 and 7). He has won 3 other titles: Munich (2003), Gstaad (2004) and Estoril (last year). That makes 7 titles altogether.
Nadal has won 22 tournaments on clay:
4 slams: RG (2005, 6, 7, 8)
4 Monte-Carlo master (2005,6,7,8)
4 Barcelona (2005,6,7,8)
3 Rome master (2005,6,7)
2 Stuttgart (2005,7)
1 Hamburg master (2008)
His other titles are Sopot (2004), his very first title, Costa do Sauipe, Acapulco and Bastad in 2005.

saram
03-08-2009, 08:30 PM
In my opinion, if Rafa can win the US Open, he will become the GOAT regardless of totals in slam counts. Just when everyone assumed Roger was the GOAT--Rafa came along and thumped him on his home turf. Regardless of his tenure at the top--Rafa has just shown he is the greatest to play the sport on multiple surfaces.

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 08:43 PM
In my opinion, if Rafa can win the US Open, he will become the GOAT regardless of totals in slam counts. Just when everyone assumed Roger was the GOAT--Rafa came along and thumped him on his home turf. Regardless of his tenure at the top--Rafa has just shown he is the greatest to play the sport on multiple surfaces.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. If Nadal wins another 3 Wimbledons, 2 French, 2 Aussie and also wins 3 US Opens then yes he would be GOAT, or at least a contender. Otherwise, no, at least not yet:)

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 08:45 PM
In my opinion, if Rafa can win the US Open, he will become the GOAT regardless of totals in slam counts. Just when everyone assumed Roger was the GOAT--Rafa came along and thumped him on his home turf. Regardless of his tenure at the top--Rafa has just shown he is the greatest to play the sport on multiple surfaces.
Federer has already done something extraordinary: 4 slam finals for 2 years in a row (2006,7) and 3 slams won + master cup for 3 calendar years (2004,6,7), which to me is quite unique and mindboggling. I know Connors did it once and Wilander too- I'm talking about 3 slams, not master cup- (Sampras never) but 3 times is truly insane!

kingdaddy41788
03-08-2009, 08:47 PM
There's also the fact that the grass at Wimbledon doesn't play like grass anymore. If they want it to play differently they should just change the surface instead of mutilating what grass court tennis is supposed to be.

thalivest
03-08-2009, 08:48 PM
Tennis has existed for more than 16 years. The real GOAT at this point is clearly Laver, and either Federer or Nadal have a long way to go before reaching him, although Rafa IMO arguably has the better shot only because he has so much younger and his possabilities are more limitless than Federer at this point. Borg is also above any of Sampras, Federer, or Nadal at this point IMO. Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, even Rosewall you could argue as well.

The myth that the GOAT duel is between Sampras and Federer with Nadal only chasing those 2 is extremely short sighted.

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 08:50 PM
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. If Nadal wins another 3 Wimbledons, 2 French, 2 Aussie and also wins 3 US Opens then yes he would be GOAT, or at least a contender. Otherwise, no, at least not yet:)
I disagree. If Nadal did a calendar grand slam, that would be unbelievable. To me Federer and Nadal could both become GOOP, each one with different achievements but equally spectacular records...

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 08:51 PM
Tennis has existed for more than 16 years. The real GOAT at this point is clearly Laver, and either Federer or Nadal have a long way to go before reaching him, although Rafa IMO arguably has the better shot only because he has so much younger and his possabilities are more limitless than Federer at this point. Borg is also above any of Sampras, Federer, or Nadal at this point IMO. Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, even Rosewall you could argue as well.

The myth that the GOAT duel is between Sampras and Federer with Nadal only chasing those 2 is extremely short sighted.
That's why I said GOOP, not GOAT... (greatest of open era)

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 08:52 PM
Yep I agree, it's Laver:)

And just for the record Connors is currently way ahead of Nadal in any true GOAT test!!!

thalivest
03-08-2009, 08:54 PM
That's why I said GOOP, not GOAT... (greatest of open era)

What does GOOP stand for. :)

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 08:56 PM
There's also the fact that the grass at Wimbledon doesn't play like grass anymore. If they want it to play differently they should just change the surface instead of mutilating what grass court tennis is supposed to be.

You've hit the nail on the head Sir:) Wimbledon grass was too fast in 90's, now it's too slow. Bring back the 60's/70's/80's grass, and let's see some true all-court varied great and exciting to watch tennis!!!

kingdaddy41788
03-08-2009, 08:57 PM
You've hit the nail on the head Sir:) Wimbledon grass was too fast in 90's, now it's too slow. Bring back the 60's/70's/80's grass, and let's see some true all-court varied great and exciting to watch tennis!!!

Agreed. It plays almost like clay now. It's ridiculous.

saram
03-08-2009, 08:58 PM
You've hit the nail on the head Sir:) Wimbledon grass was too fast in 90's, now it's too slow. Bring back the 60's/70's/80's grass, and let's see some true all-court varied great and exciting to watch tennis!!!

So what current S&V players will come and liven up tennis at Wimbledon? Stepanek? Come on, man....

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 09:01 PM
So what current S&V players will come and liven up tennis at Wimbledon? Stepanek? Come on, man....

Well it's been so slow for the last few years, no sensible player is gonna S+V!!!

I'm sure many Pros would S+V if the grass was fast enough, Federer would for a start I'm sure:):)

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 09:03 PM
Federer HAS TO make 15 slams though. Winning so many slams a year for several years and still not break the record of # of slams overall would look bad on his resume IMO, it would reflect badly on his longevity and bring arguments to the people who claim the field was weak during his dominating years. He doesn't have the record of weeks at #1 (although he has it for consecutive) or # of masters won. He really, really has to break # of slams for the sake of his GOOP status! (or 14 with RG)

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 09:06 PM
Can you please tell us what a GOOP is?

saram
03-08-2009, 09:10 PM
Well it's been so slow for the last few years, no sensible player is gonna S+V!!!

I'm sure many Pros would S+V if the grass was fast enough, Federer would for a start I'm sure:):)

Nope, says he doesn't like to do it.

tennis_hand
03-08-2009, 09:11 PM
federer now has averagely more than 1 slams for each year since he turned pro. it's like u win at least 1 slam to celebrate every year.

Pete sampras has averagely 1 Slam every pro year. 14 slams over 14 year pro career.

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 09:12 PM
Nope, says he doesn't like to do it.

If it was fast ENOUGH, then he would like to:):)

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 09:13 PM
Does anyone know what a GOOP is, or am I missing a really obvious joke?

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 09:14 PM
Can you please tell us what a GOOP is?
Greatest Of OPen era.

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 09:18 PM
Greatest Of OPen era.

Wouldn't that be a GOOE?

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 09:26 PM
Wouldn't that be a GOOE?
I guess it should but GOOP sounds much better!

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 09:28 PM
I guess it should but GOOP sounds much better!

Yep, to be fair, it really does:)

JoshDragon
03-08-2009, 09:35 PM
Yep I agree, it's Laver:)

And just for the record Connors is currently way ahead of Nadal in any true GOAT test!!!

What makes you think that Laver is the GOAT?

jimbo333
03-08-2009, 09:44 PM
What makes you think that Laver is the GOAT?

Well if you look at how he was rated as a GOOSE and a GOOP then he is the GOAT:)

saram
03-08-2009, 09:46 PM
Well if you look at how he was rated as a GOOSE and a GOOP then he is the GOAT:)

That's pretty good....:)

TheNatural
03-09-2009, 04:30 AM
Nadal may end up the best in his era even if he gets less slams than Fed. Nadal already has a dominant record v Fed and has already won 5 of the big 6. He only needs the US Open to complete the whole set. Meanwhile Fed needs to turn around the rivalry with Nadal by beating him in some slam finals and he needs to win the Davis cup some time(s), the French Open and singles Olympic Gold.

hoodjem
03-09-2009, 04:43 AM
Tennis has existed for more than 16 years. The real GOAT at this point is clearly Laver, and either Federer or Nadal have a long way to go before reaching him, although Rafa IMO arguably has the better shot only because he has so much younger and his possabilities are more limitless than Federer at this point. Borg is also above any of Sampras, Federer, or Nadal at this point IMO. Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, even Rosewall you could argue as well.

The myth that the GOAT duel is between Sampras and Federer with Nadal only chasing those 2 is extremely short sighted.
Agreed and endorsed. If Rafa wins a true Grand Slam, I believe that would put him above Fed--if not Rosewall, Tilden, or Laver.

Yep I agree, it's Laver:)

And just for the record Connors is currently way ahead of Nadal in any true GOAT test!!!

Agreed. At present about 20 players are ahead of Nadal, including Tilden, Rosewall, Budge, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, Perry, Lendl, Vines, Connors, Kramer, Cochet, Hoad, Lacoste, Emerson, McEnroe, and Newcombe.

Gorecki
03-09-2009, 04:49 AM
What makes you think that Laver is the GOAT?

oh yeah... he didnt even use Nike stuff.. how could he be GOAT, GOOP GOOSE or any animal..

now if he wore breathe cages it would be a completely different stuff now wouldnt it JOsh?

Cyan
03-09-2009, 07:33 AM
You can't be GOAT when you have a 6-13 H2H against a rival. :shock:

Bud Collins and other tennis pundits said so.

heninfan99
03-09-2009, 08:07 AM
What if Fed wins three more slams, two wimbledons and a farewell US open. That would put him at 16 without a French. Assuming he makes the French final again, he'd have over 20 finals.

Clearly that tops Sampras.

But what if Nadal wins 3-4 more slams, including a US open. He'd be at 8-9 total slams, but with a complete place setting.

I don't see Nadal lasting long enough to win many more than 10 slams. Not only is his game tough on his body, he seems to care for life outside of tennis.

I guess it comes down to quantity vs. versatility. I'm likely to lean towards Fed. Yes, I'm a fan of his smooth classical game, but he really isn't Clay deficient, just overmatched. It would be interesting to know how many titles he has on clay.

I think there's a real chance this could be a message board argument in 2014.

Slams don't mean everything when considering the Greatest of All Time. People like McEnroe didn't always play the Australian Open as he thought the tourney at Madison Square Garden was more important. At that time the AO had to offer payment guarantees just to get the top pros to show up.

I think total year end rankings at number 1 plus the competition the player faced in his era are a better guide. Of course, you have to account for the amature/pro rules change in Laver's era. I love Federer but IMHO Sampras had tougher competitors to face from day one.

JoshDragon
03-09-2009, 08:49 AM
oh yeah... he didnt even use Nike stuff.. how could he be GOAT, GOOP GOOSE or any animal..

now if he wore breathe cages it would be a completely different stuff now wouldnt it JOsh?

That's right. The breathe cage make the champion. I'm amazed that Laver was able to win a match without breathe cages. ;)

martini1
03-09-2009, 09:27 PM
You can't be GOAT when you have a 6-13 H2H against a rival. :shock:

Bud Collins and other tennis pundits said so.

I agree on that too. No disrespect to Federer. He is a great great player. To me a GOAT has to do the following when he retires to be qualified as the true GOAT:

A Golden career Slam (all GS + Olympic Gold, preferred in singles)
A winning record against all the top 10 players in career
Most career titles all time
#1 during most of the career
Hold some kind of winning streak in all time record

There can only be ONE GOAT and the record should stand at least for a couple decades if not more.

380pistol
03-09-2009, 10:58 PM
Half the people who post in this forum are a complete joke. Now if Nadal can win the US Opeb he's....

In my opinion, if Rafa can win the US Open, he will become the GOAT regardless of totals in slam counts.


And....

I disagree. If Nadal did a calendar grand slam, that would be unbelievable. To me Federer and Nadal could both become GOOP, each one with different achievements but equally spectacular records...

...wait, there's more.....

Nadal may end up the best in his era even if he gets less slams than Fed. Nadal already has a dominant record v Fed and has already won 5 of the big 6. He only needs the US Open to complete the whole set.


So with things like this being said, where does leave Agassi??? He already has all4. If Nadal can win the US Open he'll be anointed as this, that and the 5th, yet Agassi has already done it.

Yet Dre get ****ed and sh***ed on to no end around here. I can't begin begin to count the times people here have spit on his grave, but now are ready to anoint Nadal for something Agassi did 10 years ago. You gotta luv this logic!!

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 03:43 AM
Half the people who post in this forum are a complete joke. Now if Nadal can win the US Opeb he's....



And....



...wait, there's more.....



So with things like this being said, where does leave Agassi??? He already has all4. If Nadal can win the US Open he'll be anointed as this, that and the 5th, yet Agassi has already done it.

Yet Dre get ****ed and sh***ed on to no end around here. I can't begin begin to count the times people here have spit on his grave, but now are ready to anoint Nadal for something Agassi did 10 years ago. You gotta luv this logic!!

You have just introduced yourself to the TTW Nadal Fan Logical-Deductive myth construction...

henryshli
03-10-2009, 04:16 AM
Nope, says he doesn't like to do it.

Only because there isn't a suitable surface to do so. If the grass plays like they used to then of course more pros would S+V.

Don't forget Karlovic a very average player still does well on grass even now.

henryshli
03-10-2009, 04:19 AM
Only because there isn't a suitable surface to do so. If the grass plays like they used to then of course more pros would S+V.

Don't forget Karlovic a very average player still does well on grass even now.

and how would the ranking points look if they only had one slam and may be a couple of 500pts events on caly each year?

richied
03-10-2009, 04:25 AM
If the 'what if ' senario plays out, I think we could be closer to finding the GOAT. But, If Fed can't level out the H2H or at least win a few more slams against Nadal than I don't care if he wins 20 slams. If your greatest rival is kicking your arse when it matters the most then something is wrong. IMO (and I'm a Fed fan).

JoshDragon
03-10-2009, 10:29 AM
Half the people who post in this forum are a complete joke. Now if Nadal can win the US Opeb he's....



And....



...wait, there's more.....



So with things like this being said, where does leave Agassi??? He already has all4. If Nadal can win the US Open he'll be anointed as this, that and the 5th, yet Agassi has already done it.

Yet Dre get ****ed and sh***ed on to no end around here. I can't begin begin to count the times people here have spit on his grave, but now are ready to anoint Nadal for something Agassi did 10 years ago. You gotta luv this logic!!

Nadal, is in a much different position than Agassi was. First of all Andre was already 29 when he won RG and completed the grand slam, Nadal, would be only 23 if he wins the US this year. In many people's opinion (including my own) it's more impressive to win the majors at a younger age.

Secondly, Agassi had a horrible record against his biggest rival, Sampras when they were playing at the majors. Where as Nadal has usually gotten the best of Federer.

Nadal, also, has the tendancy to win the majors quickly. He won the French and Australian on his debut in the finals. Some of those majors took Andre forever to win. It took him 2 semi-finals and 2 finals to win RG and 2 semi-finals and 1 final to win the US.

Nadal has proven to be much more consistent (so far) than Andre.

Cyan
03-10-2009, 11:03 AM
Laver is the GOAT.

JoshDragon
03-10-2009, 01:34 PM
Five greatest players of all time:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Laver
5. Borg

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 02:12 PM
Five greatest players of all time:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Laver
5. Borg

lovely list...

i sugest a few changes though...

1 - Nadal
2 - Federer
3 - Nadal
4 - Barney
5 - The small guy form Fantasy Island...


you Nadal fans neve cease to amaze me!

veroniquem
03-10-2009, 02:14 PM
Half the people who post in this forum are a complete joke. Now if Nadal can win the US Opeb he's....



And....



...wait, there's more.....



So with things like this being said, where does leave Agassi??? He already has all4. If Nadal can win the US Open he'll be anointed as this, that and the 5th, yet Agassi has already done it.

Yet Dre get ****ed and sh***ed on to no end around here. I can't begin begin to count the times people here have spit on his grave, but now are ready to anoint Nadal for something Agassi did 10 years ago. You gotta luv this logic!!
That is not what I said, you didn't read properly. I didn't say if nadal wins USO... I said if Nadal manages a CALENDAR SLAM. When did Agassi ever do a CALENDAR SLAM?
Also I didn't say GOAT, I said GOOP (greatest of open era). I'm perfectly aware of everything Laver and older players have achieved.

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 02:15 PM
Nadal, is in a much different position than Agassi was. First of all Andre was already 29 when he won RG and completed the grand slam, Nadal, would be only 23 if he wins the US this year. In many people's opinion (including my own) it's more impressive to win the majors at a younger age.

Secondly, Agassi had a horrible record against his biggest rival, Sampras when they were playing at the majors. Where as Nadal has usually gotten the best of Federer.

Nadal, also, has the tendancy to win the majors quickly. He won the French and Australian on his debut in the finals. Some of those majors took Andre forever to win. It took him 2 semi-finals and 2 finals to win RG and 2 semi-finals and 1 final to win the US.

Nadal has proven to be much more consistent (so far) than Andre.

meanwhile, he still needs to achieve what Andre achieved. you see... your opinion on how good a player will perform is not enough to make him Win titles and achieve. he really has to win the titles.. wishfull thinking of his fans doenst count as an achievement!

veroniquem
03-10-2009, 02:27 PM
meanwhile, he still needs to achieve what Andre achieved. you see... your opinion on how good a player will perform is not enough to make him Win titles and achieve. he really has to win the titles.. wishfull thinking of his fans doenst count as an achievement!
But he's way ahead of Andre for a chance to achieve it. At Nadal's age, Andre wasn't even a tenth of the player Nadal is.
Agassi: 17 titles
1 slam
2 masters
year end ranking at 22 #9
Nadal: 32 titles
6 slams
12 masters
#1
I would say it's a nice headstart for the youngster...

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 02:40 PM
But he's way ahead of Andre for a chance to achieve it. At Nadal's age, Andre wasn't even a tenth of the player Nadal is.
Agassi: 17 titles
1 slam
2 masters
year end ranking at 22 #9
Nadal: 32 titles
6 slams
12 masters
#1
I would say it's a nice headstart for the youngster...

like i said. he hasnt achieved it yet (not that i dont see him doing it) so my point remains: he is not yet above Agassi in achievements.

and no! winning USO wont make him GOAT or GOOP, GOOSE OR GOOBER OR GATUSO... (a calendar slam neither since Laver has done it twice)

Again... you nadal fans can wish whatever you want. wishfull thinking is not an achievement for your favourite player.

and yes.. not bad of an headstart... (Becker won Wimbledon by 17 and still..)


ps: and placing him above Laver like that teenager with a fixation on nike gear did is ___________ (fill the blank at your will)

abmk
03-10-2009, 02:49 PM
That is not what I said, you didn't read properly. I didn't say if nadal wins USO... I said if Nadal manages a CALENDAR SLAM.

Big surprise :roll:

bolo
03-10-2009, 02:50 PM
What if Fed wins three more slams, two wimbledons and a farewell US open. That would put him at 16 without a French. Assuming he makes the French final again, he'd have over 20 finals.

Clearly that tops Sampras.

But what if Nadal wins 3-4 more slams, including a US open. He'd be at 8-9 total slams, but with a complete place setting.

I don't see Nadal lasting long enough to win many more than 10 slams. Not only is his game tough on his body, he seems to care for life outside of tennis.

I guess it comes down to quantity vs. versatility. I'm likely to lean towards Fed. Yes, I'm a fan of his smooth classical game, but he really isn't Clay deficient, just overmatched. It would be interesting to know how many titles he has on clay.

I think there's a real chance this could be a message board argument in 2014.

All the grand slams are more or less the same. If federer has 16 and nadal only has 10, federer will be pro era goat, not really all that much to discuss.

The key is that everyone knows that there are four tournaments to win ahead of time. If you want to develop a style that dominates on one surface (nadal on clay) but is less effective on 3 other surfaces, that has some advantages and disadvantages for your GOAT chances. If you want to develop a game that is effective on all surfaces but that cannot dominate any single one (agassi) that also has some advantages and disadvantages. Imo there is no real (marginal sure) extracredit for winning on all four. Dominating two like sampras or 3 to a smaller degree like federer is just as impressive.

bolo
03-10-2009, 02:52 PM
lovely list...

i sugest a few changes though...

1 - Nadal
2 - Federer
3 - Nadal
4 - Barney
5 - The small guy form Fantasy Island...


you Nadal fans neve cease to amaze me!

lol, have you considered that maybe you amaze easily gorecki. :) You should look into that.

abmk
03-10-2009, 02:52 PM
IF nadal wins only the USO from now on, IMO he can't be considered the G.O.A.T, its not even close ; he still has to remain at the top for more time, he's just had his best year till date the previous year .....

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 02:54 PM
lol, have you considered that maybe you amaze easily gorecki. :) You should look into that.

what.. they can do worst?:)

bolo
03-10-2009, 02:57 PM
what.. they can do worst?:)

This is the internet. As a great man once said: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." just kidding. :)

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 03:05 PM
This is the internet. As a great man once said: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." just kidding. :)

lol...

But lets be honest. what in heavens sake makes someone consider Rafael Nadal today (10/03/2009) a better player than Rod Laver, Sampras, Federer, Emerson, Borg, Tilden, Budge....

bolo
03-10-2009, 03:14 PM
lol...

But lets be honest. what in heavens sake makes someone consider Rafael Nadal today (10/03/2009) a better player than Rod Laver, Sampras, Federer, Emerson, Borg, Tilden, Budge....


right now, not so much, but he's already close to the agassi level and the future looks bright.

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 03:18 PM
right now, not so much, but he's already close to the agassi level and the future looks bright.

no questions on that...

veroniquem
03-10-2009, 03:20 PM
like i said. he hasnt achieved it yet (not that i dont see him doing it) so my point remains: he is not yet above Agassi in achievements.

and no! winning USO wont make him GOAT or GOOP, GOOSE OR GOOBER OR GATUSO... (a calendar slam neither since Laver has done it twice)

Again... you nadal fans can wish whatever you want. wishfull thinking is not an achievement for your favourite player.

and yes.. not bad of an headstart... (Becker won Wimbledon by 17 and still..)


ps: and placing him above Laver like that teenager with a fixation on nike gear did is ___________ (fill the blank at your will)
A calendar slam on all surfaces would make him the GOOP whether you like it or not. It is so hard to do that noone has done it since the beginning of hard courts. Laver did it on only 2 surfaces, sorry but not the same.

klementine79
03-10-2009, 03:25 PM
For me it's all about the ride... and not so much the destination.

I'm only 29y.o. and can appreciate what Laver, Borg, Connors and Becker did.

I started watching and playing in '88- when Agassi went from #25 - #3 by the end of the year.

I watched as Sampras go from #65- #5 in 1990.

As I said before, for me it's all about the ride and not the destination.

For my money, I have never witnessed any player dominate as Federer did between 2004-07.

I don't know about G.O.A.T-- but he was unstoppable during that stretch.

I don't know how the competition was during Laver's era, but for one man to win calendar slams, twice.-- correct me if I'm wrong-- competition could not have been that great.

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 03:28 PM
A calendar slam on all surfaces would make him the GOOP whether you like it or not. It is so hard to do that noone has done it since the beginning of hard courts. Laver did it on only 2 surfaces, sorry but not the same.

so what? Nadal wont do it (if he does) with a 65 sq inch wood frame with natural gut and plimpsol shoes...

see how that is a knife that cuts both ways?

the surface bs is flat out not acceptable. he won in the surfaces of it's time...

and we are sticking to slams... lets take a look at all those "as big as Slams" events he won (yes.. there wer other events back in the day)...

bolo
03-10-2009, 03:29 PM
A calendar slam on all surfaces would make him the GOOP whether you like it or not. It is so hard to do that noone has done it since the beginning of hard courts. Laver did it on only 2 surfaces, sorry but not the same.

I am not sure it would. Sure it's historically hard, but so is achieving 14 grand slams. Do you have a method for figuring out which is harder given a set of competitors and playing conditions?

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 03:30 PM
For me it's all about the ride... and not so much the destination.

I'm only 29y.o. and can appreciate what Laver, Borg, Connors and Becker did.

I started watching and playing in '88- when Agassi went from #25 - #3 by the end of the year.

I watched as Sampras go from #65- #5 in 1990.

As I said before, for me it's all about the ride and not the destination.

For my money, I have never witnessed any player dominate as Federer did between 2004-07.

I don't know about G.O.A.T-- but he was unstoppable during that stretch.

I don't know how the competition was during Laver's era, but for one man to win calendar slams, twice.-- correct me if I'm wrong-- competition could not have been that great.


you just blew your own argument in less than 2 paragraphs...

bolo
03-10-2009, 03:31 PM
you just blew your own argument in less than 2 paragraphs...

where is the frank thomas quote from? I used to like watching him play baseball, if it's the same guy.

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 03:35 PM
where is the frank thomas quote from? I used to like watching him play baseball, if it's the same guy.

you were reading my signature :)

i was selling a pair of bnib Frank Thomas sneakers... (yes... the big hurt guy) very rare. i have to change my sig... it's outdated! i still have another pair though!

bolo
03-10-2009, 03:44 PM
you were reading my signature :)

i was selling a pair of bnib Frank Thomas sneakers... (yes... the big hurt guy) very rare. i have to change my sig... it's outdated! i still have another pair though!

the big hurt, lol. he was a real monster for a while, he was on some fun white sox teams in the 90s.

veroniquem
03-10-2009, 03:55 PM
I am not sure it would. Sure it's historically hard, but so is achieving 14 grand slams. Do you have a method for figuring out which is harder given a set of competitors and playing conditions?
Winning a lot of slams is very hard but a few have done it (Sampras, Federer, Borg in open era).
Winning 3 slams a year is also very rare but 3 players have done it: Connors, Wilander and Federer. (none of them did it on 3 different surfaces by the way, Connors did it on 1, Wilander and Federer on 2).
Now winning all 4: there's only 1 guy and it was a long time ago- just that would be enough to make it exciting- but he did it on only 2 surfaces.
Winning all 4 on 3 different surfaces: noone. It hasn't been done. It's like gold you know, the rarest something is, the most precious it becomes. To me that's the one feat I would like to see in my lifetime. I want to see someone do something that has never been done. To me all 4 on all surfaces in a year is more impressive than just one more or less slam at the end of your career.

bolo
03-10-2009, 04:10 PM
Winning a lot of slams is very hard but a few have done it (Sampras, Federer, Borg in open era).
Winning 3 slams a year is also very rare but 3 players have done it: Connors, Wilander and Federer.
Now winning all 4: there's only 1 guy and it was a long time ago- just that would be enough to make it exciting- but he did it on only 2 surfaces.
Winning all 4 on 3 different surfaces: noone. It hasn't been done. It's like gold you know, the rarest something is, the most precious it becomes. To me that's the one feat I would like to see in my lifetime. I want to see someone do something that has never been done. To me all 4 on all surfaces is more impressive than just one more or one less slam.

Maybe, but that's just your intuition about what is more rare, which might be very wrong here. Just, look at how hard federer is now finding it to reach 14.Borg stopped cold at 11 and after that no one is even close.

Just like federer is now close to 14, federer also had a decent chance at getting all 4 in one year (2005 imo, 2 matches away). IIRC wilander was also close one year (3 matches away).

jimbo333
03-10-2009, 05:53 PM
Well Connors was close, but wasn't even allowed to play the French in the year he won the other 3 slams! Many people say he would have won it, had he played, and got the Calender Grand Slam that year:):)

egn
03-10-2009, 06:08 PM
In my opinion, if Rafa can win the US Open, he will become the GOAT regardless of totals in slam counts. Just when everyone assumed Roger was the GOAT--Rafa came along and thumped him on his home turf. Regardless of his tenure at the top--Rafa has just shown he is the greatest to play the sport on multiple surfaces.


---Nadal Arguments
-So wait Agassi is GOAT? If he finishes 9 slams 1 of each..sorry no GOAT. Could play all surfaces but no longevity and it would be limited dominance.
-Calendar slam definitely ups it but if he wins all 4 this year then never wins another one...sorry

---A few Federer agruements.
-Davis Cup should not be faulted to him...his best years Swiss lacked talent.
-Fed in my opinion does not need a winning record because Nadal is just so dominant on clay and never faced Fed on HC consistently during his best years Fed's hope is to finish something like this
4-2 Grass
7-4 HC
7-14 Clay
18-20 favor Nadal
He would have a losing record, but it would be close and he would be better on 2 surfaces..however thats probably not happening

---Open to Non Open Era
-Comparing across the two eras is so difficult. There are more players now, then there were in the 20s, the game has changed a lot even from the 50s. You can't play deep into your 30s anymore or hell late 20s is the end usually of most players. Laver could play dominately for 10-15 years...career's today are that long due to the new technology. You have more dominant teens and less elder players. I like to break the two eras up. 70s on the game started to evolve fast and by the 80s it had taken on a different image and form than the 60s. Comparing Tilden to Federer or Perry to Federer and Sampras is so difficult. Through Pancho Gonzalez into the mix and things are worse.

edmondsm
03-10-2009, 06:21 PM
Tennis has existed for more than 16 years.


Not GOAT level tennis. Go look up some of the guys Laver was playing. Many players, even the guys he played in some GS finals, were not full time tennis pros. How can you compare Fed and Sampras (who never played anyone who wasn't a touring tennis pro) to Laver. It's inconceivable to me.

JoshDragon
03-10-2009, 06:38 PM
Not GOAT level tennis. Go look up some of the guys Laver was playing. Many players, even the guys he played in some GS finals, were not full time tennis pros. How can you compare Fed and Sampras (who never played anyone who wasn't a touring tennis pro) to Laver. It's inconceivable to me.

Laver was a great player in his own right. Best player of the 60s. However, I agree with you he wasn't at the same level as Sampras and Federer. Many of Laver's slams were won during the Amateur era.

veroniquem
03-10-2009, 06:40 PM
Maybe, but that's just your intuition about what is more rare, which might be very wrong here. Just, look at how hard federer is now finding it to reach 14.Borg stopped cold at 11 and after that no one is even close.

Just like federer is now close to 14, federer also had a decent chance at getting all 4 in one year (2005 imo, 2 matches away). IIRC wilander was also close one year (3 matches away).
How is it my intuition that something has never been done? It's a fact. Nobody has done the grand slam on the 3 surfaces, not once, not twice, not 14 times, never! That's not an intuition, that's a plain fact and I'd love to see it done one day...

JoshDragon
03-10-2009, 06:44 PM
IF nadal wins only the USO from now on, IMO he can't be considered the G.O.A.T, its not even close ; he still has to remain at the top for more time, he's just had his best year till date the previous year .....

Nadal would have been #1 during some of those years if it hadn't been for Roger. He can't help it if he's playing in the same era as the GOAT.

jimbo333
03-10-2009, 06:56 PM
Not GOAT level tennis. Go look up some of the guys Laver was playing. Many players, even the guys he played in some GS finals, were not full time tennis pros. How can you compare Fed and Sampras (who never played anyone who wasn't a touring tennis pro) to Laver. It's inconceivable to me.

Laver is the GOAT. It's inconeivable to me how you can consider Sampras for example? He relied on one part of his game (the GOAT serve). He was playing on super fast grass for lots of his wins. And as for Nadal. Send him back to the 60's against Laver, give him a wooden racquet, don't let him have a rest every point, energy drinks etc etc. he would lose. In fact with his style of shot, he would probably frame the ball all the time:)

abmk
03-11-2009, 03:08 AM
---A few Federer agruements.
-Davis Cup should not be faulted to him...his best years Swiss lacked talent.
-Fed in my opinion does not need a winning record because Nadal is just so dominant on clay and never faced Fed on HC consistently during his best years Fed's hope is to finish something like this
4-2 Grass
7-4 HC
7-14 Clay
18-20 favor Nadal
He would have a losing record, but it would be close and he would be better on 2 surfaces..however thats probably not happening



Grass and HC H2H are 'realistic', but 7-14 on clay ??

abmk
03-11-2009, 03:21 AM
Nadal would have been #1 during some of those years if it hadn't been for Roger. He can't help it if he's playing in the same era as the GOAT.

Maybe**, but which are the slams he would have won without roger around ? Only wimbledon 2007 . Wimbledon 2006, he wasn't yet that great on grass .. I could go more in detail into this, but I don't think its necessary..

** Federer's absence would've helped hewitt and roddick a LOT more than rafa

JoshDragon
03-11-2009, 05:17 AM
Maybe**, but which are the slams he would have won without roger around ? Only wimbledon 2007 . Wimbledon 2006, he wasn't yet that great on grass .. I could go more in detail into this, but I don't think its necessary..

** Federer's absence would've helped hewitt and roddick a LOT more than rafa

Are you serious? Nadal, would have won Wimbledon 2006 for sure. I checked his stats for that year, he had won 80 straight service games. If it hadn't been for Roger he would have played Bjorkman in the finals.

bolo
03-11-2009, 07:39 AM
How is it my intuition that something has never been done? It's a fact. Nobody has done the grand slam on the 3 surfaces, not once, not twice, not 14 times, never! That's not an intuition, that's a plain fact and I'd love to see it done one day...

It would be interesting to see done, no doubt. But isn't the interesting question, what is harder to do/more impressive?. Sampras got 14, while no one has gotten all 4 on all surfaces. Does that imply anything about the ease of doing either thing? Maybe sampras was just talented enough that he could do it, while for the typical person it's harder to get 14 than all 4 in one year. All I am saying is that no one really has a good sense ex-ante which of those things is harder to accomplish.

jms007
03-11-2009, 08:36 AM
so what? Nadal wont do it (if he does) with a 65 sq inch wood frame with natural gut and plimpsol shoes...

see how that is a knife that cuts both ways?



Eh, not really. Laver's opponents played with the same equipment, so he was not at a disadvantage.

bolo
03-11-2009, 09:48 AM
Laver is the GOAT. It's inconeivable to me how you can consider Sampras for example? He relied on one part of his game (the GOAT serve). He was playing on super fast grass for lots of his wins. And as for Nadal. Send him back to the 60's against Laver, give him a wooden racquet, don't let him have a rest every point, energy drinks etc etc. he would lose. In fact with his style of shot, he would probably frame the ball all the time:)

sampras relied on four parts of his game, his serve, his forehand, his volleys and his athleticism. Guys who rely on their serve are karlovic, phillipoussis, Isner types and they usually lose in 3rd rounds of whatever slam they are playing in. Notice that sampras has 14 slams and karlovic/philipoussis/isner have 0 slams between them.

Nadal is born with some extraordinary natural gifts: racquet speed, hands/ball control, speed, endurance. He would be fine in any era. The "style of shot" is a function of the technology that is available, if you have him play with a wooden racquet his "style of shot" would be different. Now this doesn't always have to be true, it's possible that changes in racquets have allowed some players to rise to the top of the pro ranks that wouldn't have previously. But I wouldn't guess that nadal was one of these guys, imo he would be great in any era.

JoshDragon
03-11-2009, 12:28 PM
Laver is the GOAT. It's inconeivable to me how you can consider Sampras for example? He relied on one part of his game (the GOAT serve). He was playing on super fast grass for lots of his wins. And as for Nadal. Send him back to the 60's against Laver, give him a wooden racquet, don't let him have a rest every point, energy drinks etc etc. he would lose. In fact with his style of shot, he would probably frame the ball all the time:)

Sampras grew up with wood, so I think he would be able to hold his own against Laver.

Besides, the same can be argued if you took Laver from 1969 and put him in 2009. He wouldn't stand a chance against any top 10 player.

veroniquem
03-11-2009, 12:40 PM
It would be interesting to see done, no doubt. But isn't the interesting question, what is harder to do/more impressive?. Sampras got 14, while no one has gotten all 4 on all surfaces. Does that imply anything about the ease of doing either thing? Maybe sampras was just talented enough that he could do it, while for the typical person it's harder to get 14 than all 4 in one year. All I am saying is that no one really has a good sense ex-ante which of those things is harder to accomplish.
Well, Sampras has done the 14 and Federer is very, very close to that number and may conceivably get 15 or more. That's already 2 players who managed to get around 15 slams. I'm not saying it's easy, I have the utmost respect for that record but there's got to be a reason why noone has pulled the 4 slams in a calendar year, and to me the most logical one is that it's the most difficult thing to do.
Don't forget also that, sure, 14 or 15 slams are amazing but Agassi won 17 masters for example while Connors won more than 100 tournaments overall and Lendl almost 100. So I would say winning a lot of tournaments seems more manageable (especially if it's spread over a long career) than a yearly domination that would include all 4 slams.

jimbo333
03-11-2009, 05:34 PM
Sampras grew up with wood, so I think he would be able to hold his own against Laver.

Besides, the same can be argued if you took Laver from 1969 and put him in 2009. He wouldn't stand a chance against any top 10 player.

He really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!

Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10:)

Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT:):)

veroniquem
03-11-2009, 06:09 PM
He really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!

Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10:)

Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT:):)
He may be the GOAT but not the GOOP IMO :)

SaintClaires
03-11-2009, 06:19 PM
He really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!

Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10:)

Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT:):)

What is a Goose and a Goop?

If we are making up words, then I would say that Nadal is a JOOPY.

jimbo333
03-11-2009, 06:24 PM
What is a Goose and a Goop?

If we are making up words, then I would say that Nadal is a JOOPY.

I found out what a GOOP is earlier in this thread! Read the thread and you too will find out:)

I came up with the GOOSE, see if you can work out what it is?

SaintClaires
03-11-2009, 06:27 PM
I found out what a GOOP is earlier in this thread! Read the thread and you too will find out:)

I came up with the GOOSE, see if you can work out what it is?

Here's my guess:

GOOSE: Gilles Operates On Simple Exercises


Am I close? :)

GameSampras
03-11-2009, 07:30 PM
The game has changed far too much to come up with a truly objective position on the undisputed GOAT. You cant go by just slams. The GS count didnt even begin being important until Sampras was chasing EMerson's record. Laver didnt get the slams on the rebound ace, hardcourts etc. It was clay and grass. Not fair to players like Andre and Pete (especially Dre) who had to manage the Career Slam on 4 legit polarized surfaces. A tougher feat than what Laver accomplished IMO. Not to mention what Nadal is accomplishing. (Sorry Nadal fans). THe death of the serve-volley attackers. The old Wimbeldon grass gone. The carpet gone. The homogenized surfaces along with homogenized player where grinders can win every slam. BEfore this wasnt the case. The diversity of surfaces and players would not allow this. T

At the end of the day people are present their own opinions with subjective ideas to suit their own cases of their guy.


All you can say for sure with a true degree of objectiveness is each has it's player. When you start spreading it out acrossed eras, thats where the subjectiveness begins

egn
03-11-2009, 07:39 PM
The game has changed far too much to come up with a truly objective position on the undisputed GOAT. You cant go by just slams. The GS count didnt even begin being important until Sampras was chasing EMerson's record. Laver didnt get the slams on the rebound ace, hardcourts etc. It was clay and grass. Not fair to players like Andre and Pete (especially Dre) who had to manage the Career Slam on 4 legit polarized surfaces. A tougher feat than what Laver accomplished IMO. Not to mention what Nadal is accomplishing. (Sorry Nadal fans). THe death of the serve-volley attackers. The old Wimbeldon grass gone. The carpet gone. The homogenized surfaces along with homogenized player where grinders can win every slam. BEfore this wasnt the case. The diversity of surfaces and players would not allow this. T

At the end of the day people are present their own opinions with subjective ideas to suit their own cases of their guy.


All you can say for sure with a true degree of objectiveness is each has it's player. When you start spreading it out acrossed eras, thats where the subjectiveness begins

This right here should simply be end of thread. Nothing else needs to be said.

JoshDragon
03-12-2009, 08:52 AM
He really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!

Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10:)

Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT:):)

Nope, no way. If you take Laver from 1969 and brought him to the tour today he would never be able to adapt. Rod, would already 30/31 years old (looking at retirement from pro tennis) and would have to deal with fast servers, different players, and a much different game from the one that he left 40 years ago.

It takes a long time to be able to make the wood to graphite transition, especially at the pro level. Laver wouldn't be able to do it.

Rabbit
03-12-2009, 09:29 AM
Nope, no way. If you take Laver from 1969 and brought him to the tour today he would never be able to adapt. Rod, would already 30/31 years old (looking at retirement from pro tennis) and would have to deal with fast servers, different players, and a much different game from the one that he left 40 years ago.

It takes a long time to be able to make the wood to graphite transition, especially at the pro level. Laver wouldn't be able to do it.

The mere fact that Laver was playing at the top of the game at age 31 is proof enough that he could compete in any era, especially if considered during his prime years.

Laver in his prime in any era is a winner.

You keep repeating this wood to graphite being a 'long' transition. And yet, you've admitted you've never played with a wood racket. As someone who has played with wood at a competitive level in the last 5 years, and still hits with wood your assumption is about as far off base as it can be. There is no 'long' transition from wood to graphite.

jimbo333
03-12-2009, 02:49 PM
The mere fact that Laver was playing at the top of the game at age 31 is proof enough that he could compete in any era, especially if considered during his prime years.

Laver in his prime in any era is a winner.

You keep repeating this wood to graphite being a 'long' transition. And yet, you've admitted you've never played with a wood racket. As someone who has played with wood at a competitive level in the last 5 years, and still hits with wood your assumption is about as far off base as it can be. There is no 'long' transition from wood to graphite.

I agree completely:)

Going from wood to graphite is easy. It's going the other way that is difficult. As I said earlier, Nadal would have to completely change his massive Topspin heavy shot with a wood racquet, he actually would have kept framing the ball!!!

Of course Laver would have adapted to the modern game, if he had started with a graphite racquet at the age of 15:)

jimbo333
03-12-2009, 02:52 PM
Anyone else worked out what a GOOSE is?

Rabbit
03-12-2009, 07:41 PM
I agree completely:)

Going from wood to graphite is easy. It's going the other way that is difficult. As I said earlier, Nadal would have to completely change his massive Topspin heavy shot with a wood racquet, he actually would have kept framing the ball!!!

Of course Laver would have adapted to the modern game, if he had started with a graphite racquet at the age of 15:)

Really & truly, Laver was no slouch when he went to a MP Pro Kennex. At 70, he's pretty dadgum good with a Babolat...

I think it should also be mentioned, in all fairness, that graphite rackets have evolved over time. When the first models were put out, they were spec-wise, copies of wood frames. Manufacturers built rackets that were alike. The first graphite models, Adila Cannon, Bancroft Scorpion, Trabert C-6, Wilson Ultra and Fansteel Graphite all weighed what wood rackets weighed. They all had the same head size.

Only over time have weights gone down and head sizes gone up. Along with that, balance points have shifted and rackets have become more polarized in terms of how they are set up. There are head light, head heavy, even, etc.

Point being that moving from wood to graphite required no change at all. As time has gone by, moving to newer models has been less intrusive because it has been a gradual shift.

But, the fact remains that I can go out and in about 30 minutes be hitting balls proficiently with a Head Vilas or Maxply Fort and then go back to the bag and pick up my AG100s.

Eviscerator
03-12-2009, 09:20 PM
Tennis has existed for more than 16 years. The real GOAT at this point is clearly Laver, and either Federer or Nadal have a long way to go before reaching him, although Rafa IMO arguably has the better shot only because he has so much younger and his possabilities are more limitless than Federer at this point. Borg is also above any of Sampras, Federer, or Nadal at this point IMO. Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, even Rosewall you could argue as well.

The myth that the GOAT duel is between Sampras and Federer with Nadal only chasing those 2 is extremely short sighted.

Correct ,,,

jimbo333
03-13-2009, 04:59 AM
Excellent, so we have some agreement at last that Laver is the GOAT:)

And by the way GOOSE is:-

Greatest Of clOSEd era:):)

jimbo333
03-13-2009, 05:00 AM
This right here should simply be end of thread. Nothing else needs to be said.

Absolutely:)

Leonidas
03-13-2009, 05:08 AM
hi averybody, im new here. just reading the posts:

i canīt hep feeling puzzled. why so many people just bear in mind the grand slams when it comes to pick the GOAT. Come on! alhough my favourite player is rafa, i reckon Federer is already better candidate to Goat than Sampras.In fact, if Nadal werenīt around, federer would probably have 2-3 Roland Garros. So According to you, the fact that Federer couldnīt beat the best clay courter ever (he beats everybody else on clay courts apart from Nadal) keep him from being the GOAT. come on! what about the masters series and the level of tennis. He beat sampras the only time the played at Wimbledon. Ok, Sampras maybe wasnīt at his peak, but Federer wasnīt either. I reckon only American people regard Sampras over Federer, for Obvious reasons...

veroniquem
03-13-2009, 01:13 PM
Excellent, so we have some agreement at last that Laver is the GOAT:)

And by the way GOOSE is:-

Greatest Of clOSEd era:):)
yes, I suppose it sounds better than a GOPOP! (Although I do like GOPOP :))

JoshDragon
03-13-2009, 02:29 PM
The mere fact that Laver was playing at the top of the game at age 31 is proof enough that he could compete in any era, especially if considered during his prime years.

Laver in his prime in any era is a winner.

You keep repeating this wood to graphite being a 'long' transition. And yet, you've admitted you've never played with a wood racket. As someone who has played with wood at a competitive level in the last 5 years, and still hits with wood your assumption is about as far off base as it can be. There is no 'long' transition from wood to graphite.

That's just your opinion. Unfortunately we are at a stalemate on this subject since Laver and Federer can't play each other.

However, I have seen videos of Laver. I consider him to be a great player with tremendous talent. With that said, I don't think he could seriously compete with the top players today. Especially, if he had to learn how to use a graphite.

Rabbit
03-13-2009, 03:53 PM
However, I have seen videos of Laver.

Yes, YouTube is a marvel isn't it? Hardly what I'd call extensive research though.



I consider him to be a great player with tremendous talent.

I'm sure the International Tennis Hall of Fame is relieved to hear you say that.


With that said,

...and you were doing so well...


I don't think he could seriously compete with the top players today.

You should have stopped at "I don't think"


Especially, if he had to learn how to use a graphite.

<fingernails dragged down a chalkboard>

He learned to use graphite. He mastered graphite. He owned players half his age. Why don't you first hit with wood and then try and post something that is based in reality or perspective? You continue to ignore those who have been there, done that, and have the T-shirt.

Graphite is not a big deal. It is harder to play with a 66 sq inch wood frame than a 90 square inch graphite frame. Why this simple fact continues to elude you is baffling to me. But still you persist.

Laver has 2 Grand Slams (that means he won them all in a calendar year...twice)

That is two more than the rest of the field since.

jimbo333
03-13-2009, 06:37 PM
For crying out loud, please stop crying, it's putting me off my smiling:):)

jimbo333
03-13-2009, 06:56 PM
Oh, and as usual Rabbit, you are totally correct!!! Laver is the GOAT:):):)

Gugafan
03-13-2009, 07:52 PM
The myth that the GOAT duel is between Sampras and Federer with Nadal only chasing those 2 is extremely short sighted.

Nadal has a long way to go to be considered GOAT. He has only made the final of a GS on hardcourts once. Though his tally of slams is impressive for a 22 yr old, one must question his longevity considering he is a baseline grinder.

Federer is also the only male player during the open era to win at least four consecutive Wimbledon and U.S. Open singles titles. He is thus the only player in history to win two of the same Grand Slam titles for four consecutive years (2004-07). Not forgetting records of consecutive weeks at no 1 and 7 or more consecutive GS singals finals.

It's abit premature to be labelling Nadal as a 'potential goat' based on he's early success.

grizzly4life
03-13-2009, 08:45 PM
i meant to quote the OP directly, but i was thinking his math was off on rafa. how many slams is rafa at right now? the number given didn't seem right.

fed needs a few more slams (say 3) and needs to start beating rafa again non-clay to be GOAT...

rafa needs a bunch more slams for GOAT . he isn't even close right now, but certainly has a decent game. it seems obvious that rafa will have injury problems as time goes on, but i will say that he has surprised us on so many things so far.

i'd say borg (who i'm familiar with) is miles ahead of rafa right now. but of course, rafa has time on his side and has amazing momentum.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
03-26-2009, 05:08 AM
… The real GOAT at this point is clearly Laver
... Borg is also above any of Sampras, Federer, or Nadal at this point IMO. Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, even Rosewall you could argue as well
....


Hello Thalivest.
I'm just coming back to "clearly" and "even" because I think you overrate Laver and you underrate Rosewall.

Rosewall has won more major tournaments (that is competitions equivalent to the modern Slam tournaments) than Laver
(see for instance http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3098705&postcount=41 to … http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3098705&postcount=44 written by SgtJohn),
Rosewall has defeated Laver more often in great finals than the reverse (see once again SgtJohn’s posts above).

Of course it isn’t sufficient to state that Rosewall was greater than Laver but it demonstrates that Laver wasn’t clearly the GOAT.

See what SgtJohn wrote about Kenny in
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3087013&postcount=214
and what I answered him in
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3101942&postcount=234.
See also what I wrote in
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2822560&postcount=146
or what I mainly wrote in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall

and you will understand that not "even" Rosewall is ahead of Federer or Nadal but that Rosewall is a true contender in any GOAT discussion.
I have never seen right arguments proving that Laver was superior to Rosewall.
The only departments where Laver was clearly better than Rosewall
were Laver's potential on medium and fast surfaces and Laver's number of years at the #1 place.
About Laver's potential I mean that
the very best Laver (on not slow surfaces),
for instance in the Wembley 1964 final (or 1966 final) or US Pro 1966 final or Wembley NTL 1968 or Pacific Southwest 1968 or some other matches,
was superior to the very best Rosewall (US Pro 1963, French Pro 1963, Wembley Pro 1964, US Pro 1966, Wembley Pro 1967, WCT Finals 1971-72).
On the second point Rosewall was the #1 "only" in 1961 (not certainly but at 90%), 1962 and 1963 while Laver was #1 from 1964 to 1969 and not certainly but at 90% in 1970 and 1971.
But except on those points (which I agree are very important) Rosewall was superior to Laver in every domain.

So it isn't clear at all that Laver was greater than Rosewall.

And given the fact that Tilden and Gonzales were possibly greater than Rosewall then
Laver isn't clearly at all the GOAT.

Perhaps even HL Doherty deserves a higher ranking than Budge, Borg, Sampras and Federer (Nadal for the moment isn't even in a Top10 of all time).

AprilFool
03-26-2009, 05:13 AM
You have to look at other factors. Roger was most dominant when the Master Series was best of five. And then there is an entirely new record of 19 consectutive Slam Semi0finals. (has any other player even played in 19 consecutive slams?)

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
03-29-2009, 11:39 PM
You have to look at other factors. Roger was most dominant when the Master Series was best of five. And then there is an entirely new record of 19 consectutive Slam Semi0finals. (has any other player even played in 19 consecutive slams?)

If we consider amateur Slam tournaments + "Pro Slam" tournaments (Wembley Pro, US Pro and French Pro) + Open Slam tournaments, Ken Rosewall reached 36 semifinals in a row from Wimbledon 1954 to French Open 1968.
But it has to be said that amateur Slam tournaments had sometimes weak fields because the very best players were the top pros at the time so Rosewall's performance is less good than we can think. But on the reverse when Rosewall was at his peak during his pro years before the open era there were only 3 "Pro Slam" tournaments and not 4 (but amateurs couldn't play those pro tournaments).

TheNatural
03-30-2009, 03:31 AM
Just relative to Sampras, it depends on how many finals he loses. Being a runner up more often doesn't enhance ones champion status.

If he loses a higher proportion of slam finals than Sampras then this will diminish his champion qualities because Champs win. Say if he ends up 14-8, with Sampras at 14-4, this make Fed look like a worse big match player.

Relative to Nadal, Nadal dominates Fed in Slam finals so he desperately needs to reverse that too.



What if Fed wins three more slams, two wimbledons and a farewell US open. That would put him at 16 without a French. Assuming he makes the French final again, he'd have over 20 finals.

Clearly that tops Sampras.

But what if Nadal wins 3-4 more slams, including a US open. He'd be at 8-9 total slams, but with a complete place setting.

I don't see Nadal lasting long enough to win many more than 10 slams. Not only is his game tough on his body, he seems to care for life outside of tennis.

I guess it comes down to quantity vs. versatility. I'm likely to lean towards Fed. Yes, I'm a fan of his smooth classical game, but he really isn't Clay deficient, just overmatched. It would be interesting to know how many titles he has on clay.

I think there's a real chance this could be a message board argument in 2014.